English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: To determine anesthetic efficacy of single buccal infiltration of 4% articaine and 2% lignocaine in extraction of maxillary 1st molar. Study Settings: This study was carried out at The Department of Oral &amp; Maxillofacial Surgery, Bakhtawar Amin Medical and Dental College, Multan from March 2021 to August 2021. Material and Methods: Patients were divided in two groups randomly Articaine HCl. 4% with Epinephrine 1:100,000 injection and Lignocaine HCl. 2% and Epinephrine 1:100,000 injection. Buccal infiltration was given in the area between the two molar buccal roots, along the long axis. One person carried out all injections by using slow injection method (roughly 1ml/min) and deposited full cartridge (1.8ml of solution). 4% articaine or 2% lignocaine was used on each patient when extraction was performed however in cartridges labeled 1 to 100 with the use of suitable blinding technique. Results of the Study: VAS   scores after injection of lignocaine were: mild for 5 patients (10%), moderate for 34 patients (68%), and severe for 11 patients (22%), while none of the patients reported with no pain after lignocaine injection. The mean pain experienced by patients on VAS, after extraction using articaine was 2.70 ± 1.91 and VAS after extraction using lignocaine was 2.58 ± 1.94. Conclusion: It was concluded that during articaine single buccal injection observed pain is significantly less in contrast to combined buccal and palatal lignocaine injection.. Keywords: Single buccal infiltration, articaine, lignocaine, maxillary 1st molar

Anesthetic Efficacy of Single Buccal Infiltration of 4% Articaine and 2% Lignocaine in Extraction of Maxillary 1st Molar